Martini v. Cline et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 01/10/18. Mailed to pro se party Scott Michael Martini by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SCOTT MICHAEL MARTINI,
CASE NO. 17-3188-SAC
SAM CLINE, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On December 1, 2017, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order and Order to Show Cause (“MOSC”) (Doc. 7), giving Plaintiff until
December 29, 2017, to either show cause why his case should not be dismissed for the reasons set
forth in the MOSC or to file a proper amended complaint.
In the MOSC, the Court found that: Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against
Defendants in their official capacities are subject to dismissal as barred by sovereign immunity;
Plaintiff has failed to allege any personal involvement by Defendant Cline; Plaintiff’s failure to
protect claim is subject to dismissal for failure to allege that any defendant acted with deliberate
indifference; and Plaintiff’s allegations of denial of medical care are subject to dismissal for failure
to state a claim. The Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that he has been furnished
medical care during the relevant time frame. They also indicate that his claims amount to a
difference of opinion with the treatments he has been provided by medical staff. Plaintiff’s
allegations are nothing more than a lay person’s disagreement with the medical treatment of his
symptoms by medical professionals. Such allegations do not rise to the level of a claim of cruel
and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment; and are, at most, grounds for a negligence
or malpractice claim in state court. The Court also found that to the extent Plaintiff intends to
claim a denial of access to the courts, the claim is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim
because Plaintiff failed to allege an actual injury.
The Court’s MOSC required Plaintiff to show good cause why his Amended Complaint
should not be dismissed for the reasons stated therein. Plaintiff was also given the opportunity to
file a complete and proper Second Amended Complaint upon court-approved forms that cures all
the deficiencies discussed therein. The MOSC provides that “[i]f Plaintiff does not file a Second
Amended Complaint within the prescribed time that cures all the deficiencies discussed herein,
this matter will be decided based upon the current deficient Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff has
failed to address the deficiencies and has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Court
finds that this case should be dismissed due to the deficiencies set forth in the MOSC.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action is dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Topeka, Kansas, on this 10th day of January, 2018.
S/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow
U.S. Senior District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?